TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Definition of "User-Friendly" Was Re: Engineering design practice
Subject:Re: Definition of "User-Friendly" Was Re: Engineering design practice From:slb -at- westnet -dot- com -dot- au To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:40:17 -0600
> I am curious; how do you define user-friendly?
I don't find it a useful term. I don't want to be befriended
by software, I want to use it to get things done. Good
documentation helps me get things done, helps me understand
how I might get them done better/faster/cheaper, helps me
when I have a problem I can't solve by myself. Helps me work
more efficiently and effectively in the next ten seconds and
six months from now.
I like user-centred design. That implies a product that allows
me to do what I want to do and as much as possible lets me work
my way and think my way, instead of forcing me to see things as
the developers see them.
When I deal with a clerk at a bank, government office, help desk,
etc, I hope for competent, efficient, professional, courteous.
Friendly is very much an optional extra. I feel the same way
about software, gadgets, documentation.
> User friendly documentation is, in the main,
> documentation that minimizes the reader having to do
> skips and jump-to's.
I disagree. To give one example, you could minimise "skips
and jump-to's" by combining concepts, definitions and
procedures into one long topic. But that means I need to
plough through the lot every time. In this case I'd rather
skip to the concepts/overview topic or the glossary when
required (first time through and maybe as an occasional
refresher), but most of the time just deal with the bare
procedure.
> There is really
> only one approach to creating such documentation:
I disagree with this too.
> Design highly cohesive and loosely coupled modules
> of information.
I'm a big fan of highly cohesive and loosely coupled modules.
We agree on something!
> And creation of such modules requires
> good engineering design practice.
If good engineering design practice = DFDs, then I'm
back to disagreeing (sigh).
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
